While I'm sure this is a question that has nagged at many photographers, the answer seem to be as elusive as ever. It seems there is no hard and enduring definition, but a few points do seem to surface over and over again.
I'm going to list what I believe are some of the more important aspects, and I am going to do it without images to support the text. If you know enough about photography to even care about a definition for "fine art photography," then you should be comfortable enough exploring the canyons of your of own mind in search of supportive imagery.
The image must be in black and white or some other monochrome tone.
This point is subject to debate, of course, as I'm sure lots of fine art photography is created in color, but for me one of the more salient points of the "fine art" definition is that it be "black and white." Color is fine when it's not used as a crutch, as is often the case.
The image must be evocative.
Again, subject to debate, but for an image to be successful I feel that it has to touch you on a gut level. It doesn't have to do it right away, but it should stir you up a bit inside emotionally. How an image does this is varies greatly. Some are subtle, some are downright harsh. And while responses will vary, and not every image will work for everyone, the better ones will often have a broader appeal.
The image must be printed in an appropriate size.
I feel that some images actually gain strength as they are printed larger, while some hold more appeal in smaller formats. It all depends on the image.
The image should not be offered for sale at a "cheap" price.
It's an interesting bit of human nature that an items price tag often carries with it a perception of worth. It doesn't have to be real.
These 4 points, for me, spell out the essence of how I view fine art photography. You may see my viewpoint as shallow since it so clearly revolves around "commercial" appeal. So be it. But for an image to be successful it has to be seen. To be seen it has be on display. And to put ones work on display one should always present in a manner that is consistent with their own beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Michael :) Thanks for the post on my entry. I added your blog to my 'blogroll' as well. It's good to hear from you... I haven't heard from you in a while :)
I agree with a lot of your points here on fine art. I'm not so sure that the aesthetics of the image really help determine the category as much as some other things, but, as I said before, it's subjective. I still believe that pursuing fine art labels isn't as important as pursuing your personal interests in photography. If something pops out of your camera that strikes you on multiple levels, then so be it. If not, then keep shooting :)
Cheers...
REJECT..... REJECT...REJECT..... REJECT...REJECT..... REJECT...REJECT..... REJECT...REJECT..... REJECT...REJECT..... REJECT... Point Numero Uno... I find B&W a cliché, the last refuge of the color blind. But, um, wuddo-I-know?
I like your suggestion that art needs to be "offered" for the BIG BUCKS! Now if they come, those BIG BUCKS, then the market is voting a consensus. And that's a certain validation. But again, I like the "offered" verb.
It implies the artist's belief in the artistic worth of the piece, regardless of the market's reaction. maybe it's hubris, perhaps irrational exuberance, Maybe the Big Buck "offering" is advertising, attention getting, naiveté, confusion, denial, preening, self-indulgence, or even hard-nosed realism. Maybe it comes from an experience with market acceptance. Or maybe when stupidity is sufficient explanation... well... why look farther?
Still, dinero is the one common standard of value which is universal. Oh, sometimes it's inappropriate ("Hey Babe, come up to my room - I got $27 dollars!"). Um, or maybe a hair insulting. But, I wonder if a lack of a selling price, makes an image, priceless?
There's a danger that when you give something away, sooner or later people will figure that's what it's worth. Which is what both of us are doing here with our ideas. I prefer to think that we would never charge for these thoughts. That we find them too important to limit our audience to just those who will/can pay for them.
Which I suppose makes them... priceless?
Ted
http://imagefiction.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/byrneprintmaker/
Post a Comment